Fox News Channel is often described as a cable news station. On
occasion, the words “conservative” or “biased” are attached to that
description. But few dispute the journalistic orientation of the overall
enterprise.

This is a mistake. Fox is something new—something for which we do not
yet have a word. It provides almost no actual journalism. Instead it
gives ideological guidance to the Republican Party and millions of its
supporters, attacking its opponents and keeping its supporters in line.
And it does so at a hefty profit, thereby turning itself into the
political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

Recall that last spring, David Frum lost his appointment at the conservative American Enterprise Institute before observing,
“Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are
discovering we work for Fox.” This is literally true in the case of at
least four likely Republican candidates for president in 2012: Sarah
Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. In fact, as two Politico writers observe,
“With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major
potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected
office.”

In the first place, one must note the oddity of this situation. After
all, what are political candidates doing working for a “news” station?
Isn’t that inconsistent with very idea of journalism? Can these
candidates be trusted to tell the truth about themselves, their
supporters, and their opponents? What’s more, what is it about Fox that
would entice these candidates to give the station exclusive access to
their appearances?

Politico quotes C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully
explaining that when C-SPAN tried to interview Sarah Palin, “he was told
he had to first get Fox’s permission—which the network, citing her
contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC
all report similar experiences.” “We have tried to book many of them,
but they have always refused, saying they are exclusive to Fox,”
explained another rival network staffer.

The Politico reporters note that when these candidates appear
on the network, like most Republicans, they simply “offer their views on
issues of the day.” Rarely if ever are they expected to defend their
views or answer to any potential inconsistencies.

Think about it. Fox is paying the people they are alleging to cover,
and this makes them off limits to any actual coverage save
straightforward propaganda. “We’re acutely aware of this” explained a
“Fox insider” in the Politico story. And yet, “The cold reality is, nobody at the reporter level has any say on this,” added someone Politico
described as “another source familiar with the inner workings of Fox.”
Nobody will talk about it on the record, outside of C-SPAN, apparently
for fear of retribution.

And this cozy arrangement sure works for the candidates, who not only
rake in cash but are protected from answering any uncomfortable
questions. Why else would Sarah Palin tell Delaware GOP Senate nominee
Christine O’Donnell to stick to Fox (and do so while on Fox)?

“She's gonna have to dismiss that, go with her gut, get out there,
speak to the American people, speak through Fox News, and let the
independents who are tuning into you, let them know what it is that she
stands for, the principles behind her positions,” Palin explained.

These candidates are not the only ones to enjoy a Fox perch and
paycheck. Karl Rove, you will recall, is also cashing a Rupert Murdoch
check. And again, the relationship between Rove and journalism is
tangential at best, hostile at worst.

For instance, not long ago, Fox News's Alisyn Camerota interviewed
Fox contributor Karl Rove and committed one of those faux pas that can
make viewing Fox so interesting. She asked Rove about the steady stream
of Code Pink protesters who had been following him on his book tour.

“These are sort of sad and pathetic people,” Rove explained.
“Let's not give them any more attention.” How dare a journalist ask a
paid employee of the very same news organization an inconvenient
question.

Bringing Rove into the equation naturally raises the issue of Fox and political contributions. As The New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg explained, “Already a prominent presence as an analyst on Fox News Channel and a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove is also playing a leading role in building what amounts to a shadow Republican Party,
a network of donors and operatives that is among the most aggressive in
the Republican effort to capture control of the House and the Senate.”

Rove is seeking to guide both voters and operatives in picking the
party’s candidates in addition to plans for “an anti-Democratic barrage
of attack ads that will be run tens of thousands of times, a final
get-out-the-vote push with some 40 million negative mail pieces, and 20
million automated phone calls.”

Political spending on TV ads this election cycle, according to The New York Times
blog, The Caucus, “is on track to hit $3 billion by the November
election, breaking the previous highs of roughly $2.7 billion in 2008
and $2.4 billion in 2006.” The single best place for Rove and the
candidates to find big chunks of this cash is by pitching themselves to
Fox viewers.

Finally, there is the role Fox plays in intimidating candidates and
public officials from doing their jobs in a way that might cause any
unpleasant attention to come their way. Recall that when Fox ran Andrew
Breitbart’s deliberately doctored video over and over that was designed
to falsely portray Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod of
having bragged to an NAACP audience of discriminating against whites
when she was saying just the opposite, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
panicked and fired her right away, without bothering to get to the
truth himself.

What spooked him so? As Sherrod explained, Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook had demanded her resignation, telling her “do it, because you're going to be on 'Glenn Beck' tonight.”

The implied threat of unfavorable Fox coverage works even better with
Republicans. During the period of 2010 when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
was negotiating to join Democrat John Kerry and conservative independent
Joe Lieberman in their attempt to craft an energy bill, the Republican
warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could
in negotiating the bill “before Fox News got wind of the fact that this
was a serious process,” one of the people involved in the negotiations said to The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza.

“He would say, ‘The second they focus on us, it’s gonna be all
cap-and-tax all the time, and it’s gonna become just a disaster for me
on the airwaves. We have to move this along as quickly as possible.’”

No wonder few people were surprised to learn that Rupert Murdoch, who
owns a controlling interest in News Corp., Fox’s owner, had so far this
year contributed $1 million each to the Republican Governors
Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which acts as a cutout
both for Republican donors and possibly for foreigners seeking to
influence our political process. (Murdoch toldPolitico
Wednesday night that the Chamber of Commerce gift “‘doesn’t reflect on
Fox News,’ he said. ‘It had nothing to do with Fox News.’”)

Sure. Like so many Murdoch properties, including The Wall Street Journal, Fox itself is one big contribution to the Republican cause.

Again, I’m not exactly sure what to call Fox. It has more in common
with the integrated political/judicial/business/media empire that is making a mockery
of Italian democracy under the rule of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
than any American political or media machine of the past. And yet for a
whole host of reasons, both financial and psychological, many in the
media cannot admit this, thereby allowing Fox to benefit from the
protections of journalism offered up by the First Amendment while
simultaneously subverting their purpose.

When members of the Obama administration pointed out last year that
Fox News did not adhere to the same standards as other news
organizations, many sought to defend it. Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik said
he heard “echoes of Nixon-Agnew” in the comments of White House and
accused the administration of failing to respect “press freedom.” ABC's
Jake Tapper asked
White House briefer Robert Gibbs, insisting, “It's escaped none of our
notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare
one of our sister organizations 'not a news organization' and to tell
the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you
explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news
organization is not one?”

A “news organization”? Really? Let’s give the last word on that to Ms. Palin. She asked viewers in Louisville, “What would we do without Fox News, America? We love our Fox News, yes.”

I sure understand why Sarah Palin and company love their Fox News. As for the rest of us, well, that’s a column for another day.

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is also a columnist for The Nation, Moment, and The Daily Beast. His newest book is Kabuki Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama.

In 1939, the New York-based Institute for Propaganda Analysis published an article on the seven common propaganda devices with the aim of encouraging critical, rational thinking amongst citizens.

Here are the seven common propaganda devices:

1. Name-calling

This involves the use of words to connect a person or idea to a negative concept. The aim is to make a person reject something without examining the evidence because of the negative associations attached to it.

Examples of words include ‘Terrorist‘, ‘Nazi‘ and ‘Queer’.

Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing.

2. Glittering Generalities

The opposite of name-calling, this involves the use of highly valued concepts and beliefs which attract general approval and acclaim. These are vague, emotionally attractive words like ‘freedom‘, ‘honor‘ and ‘love‘.

This method works because these concepts/words mean different things to different people, while still having a positive implication.

When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school, and in church.

Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important subject. This lowers our ’sales resistance’ and makes us far less suspicious..

3. Transfer

This is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something you respect and revere to something the propagandist would have you accept. One does this by projecting the qualities of an entity, person or symbol to another through visual or mental association.

This stimulates the recipient and makes him/her identify with recognized authorities.

In the Transfer device, symbols are constantly used. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag represents the nation. Cartoons like Uncle Sam represent a consensus of public opinion. Those symbols stir emotions. At their very sight, with the speed of light, is aroused the whole complex of feelings we have with respect to church or nation.

TucsonSentinel.com publishes analysis and commentary from a variety of community members, experts, and interest groups as a catalyst for a healthy civic conversation; we welcome your comments. As an organization, we don't endorse candidates or back specific legislation. All opinions are those of the individual authors.

Sponsored by

Tucson weather

Weather data not available

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.